Some wars are lost in a matter of moments, others stretch on indefinitely. The defeat in Afghanistan crept up silently on the national consciousness and even though we are negotiating with the Taliban, the “D” word is hardly used by anyone.

According to Obama, in one of his interminable speeches which all run together and sound the same, there really isn’t a war, just a mission, and the old mission is now becoming a new sort of mission, and the missions, all of them, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, have been successful which is why we are wrapping them up, except that we aren’t really. And that’s about as clear as the message from the big white building with the neatly mowed lawn out front gets, except for the part about how its occupant singlehandedly parachuted into Pakistan, killed Bin Laden, and then stopped off for some curry and a humanitarian award.

Had McCain won in 2008, we would no doubt he hearing a lot about the “D” word and the quagmire in Afghanistan. But the “Q” word doesn’t really get mentioned either. No war has been lost. Only a mission is ending. And missions, unlike wars, can be defined in so many creative ways that it’s hard to know what to make of them. It’s easy to tell when a war has been lost, but a mission can never be lost, only renamed. And renaming is what Obama did to the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. Those wars weren’t lost; they’re only hiding out in the history books under new names and identities.



As noted in my weekend column at National Review Online, last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal editorial on the IRS scandal was stellar. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for last Wednesday’s editorial on immigration – a rant against the Republican establishment’s sudden retreat from plans to push for immigration “reform” this year.

A number of conservative commentators, myself included, were baffled by the GOP’s apparent embrace of “amnesty first, enforcement (maybe) later” proposals. Those initiatives, while preferred by the Journal, the Chamber of Commerce, the Obama administration, and congressional Democrats, are anathema to Main Street – including the GOP’s conservative base, which must be turned out if the party is to succeed in what, thanks to Obamacare, is a promising midterm-election year. Still, even when I find myself opposed to the Journal’s bottom line on some issue or other, the editors’ take is nearly always smart and worth considering. Last Wednesday’s was neither.

The editors whine, for example, that “Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and the Heritage Foundation,” who oppose the current reform effort, “might as well share research staffs with the AFL-CIO.” And … so what? It could just as easily be said that the WSJ editorial board seems to be strategizing with La Raza, the Center for American Progress, and the Obama White House. Such claims may be worth remembering the next time the Journal complains about smear tactics and guilt-by-association arguments, but they shed no light on the merits of the immigration controversy.

The Journal ruefully concedes that President Obama’s lawlessness, particularly in the implementation of the “Affordable” Care Act, has left him without credibility “on any other law he signs” – which, of course, would include the enforcement component of any immigration overhaul. That’s true, but as even Senator Chuck Schumer must know, it’s just a fraction of the problem. It is not just Obama but the federal government – Republican leadership as well as congressional Democrats – that cannot be trusted when it comes to policing illegal immigration.

“Politics in the Age of Twitter”: Sydney Williams


Having just finished Willa Cather’s evocative novel, Death Comes to the Archbishop, I have been thinking of how much the world has changed, not just in the past ten years, but over the past two hundred years, since the start of the industrial revolution.

Cather’s principal character Jean Marie Latour is loosely based on Jean Lamy who was sent by the Catholic Church to Santa Fe in 1850 from France to establish an episcopacy in what was U.S. territory acquired from Mexico following the Mexican War of 1846-48. Lamy served as Bishop and then Archbishop for 32 years, from 1853 to 1885. In reading Cather’s novel, I was struck by the great distances Latour had to travel – 60 miles to Albuquerque, 135 miles to Taos, 500 miles to Tucson and 700 miles to San Antonio. He traveled the 1400 miles to Mexico City to assume his responsibilities. And he traveled by mule, at least during his first two decades. By the time he died, railroads had arrived.

Traveling great distances, either alone or with one or two companions, provided a lot of time for thinking, something our current world rarely allows. Very few people would want to return to a time when it took two or three days to travel by mule between Santa Fe and Albuquerque, but the condensing of distances, which reduces the opportunity for reflection, may lead to ill-considered, spontaneous comments, the consequences of which may prove embarrassing.

A Twitter account fits neatly into a world suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). An article a year ago in the New York Times noted that there had been a 41% increase in the diagnosis of ADHD over the past decade. It is unclear, from what I have read, as to why the increase. Some suggest that a greater awareness of the symptom has increased the number of diagnoses. A few cynics blame it on the drug companies who sell chemicals designed to combat ADHD. Others argue that parents bear responsibility. They have become so focused on getting their children into the right college that they keep them involved in continuous activities. And some say that a proliferation of instant communication devices and apps are responsible. Whether Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Gmail and Flickr are causes or consequences of ADHD, tweeting provides a perfect outlet.



Ironically, an idiom originating more than two plus centuries ago — from an act of courage in meeting an enemy threat — today applies to an Obama administration choosing to ignore one.

The phrase “to turn a blind eye” applies when an undesirable truth exists but one opts to ignore it. Such ignorance can be covert — by simply refusing to see it — or overt, by means of a totally contrary declaration, hoping the listener gives it greater weight over what exists.

The phrase originated from the 1801 Battle of Copenhagen. British naval hero Adm. Horatio Nelson was under the fleet command of Adm. Hyde Parker. Engaging an opposing Danish fleet, an overly cautious Parker, using his ship’s signal flags, sent subordinates authority to withdraw.

On his ship, Nelson raised a telescope to his right eye — blinded in an earlier battle — exclaiming he saw nothing. He continued to press the attack — ultimately winning victory.

On Feb. 1, at a conference in Munich, Germany, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry — pressing the Israelis hard to reach an agreement with the Palestinians — made a declaration that ignores truth.

Warning increased terrorism lingered overhead for the Israelis if Palestinian talks failed, Kerry declared, “Last year, not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank.”




During the years, I have been asked to give many, many WAFS- WASP WWII presentations … been inducted into several prestigious “Hall of Fame” type honors, and been featured in newspapers, books and magazine articles – but the bottom line for me is – “What does my Lord think of me!” Florene Miller Watson, WAFS

Florene Miller Watson was born on December 7, l920 in San Angelo, Texas to Thomas L. and Flora Theis Miller. Her father was a watchmaker and owner of a jewelry store chain in the Odessa, Texas area. Florene became fascinated with planes when at the age of 8 she took her first airplane ride in a WWI Barnstormer’s open-cockpit plane at Big Lake. “My father and I shared our exhilaration for airplanes.” When she was a college sophomore, her father purchased a Luscombe airplane so his family could learn to fly. He anticipated the United States going to war with Germany and wanted his eldest children to contribute to the war effort as aviators.

By age 19, Florene had finished flight school and completed her first solo flight. During the next 2 years, Florene obtained her commercial license, trained in aerobatics, and earned ground-school and flight instructor ratings. She was teaching civilian men enrolled in the government-sponsored War Training Program to fly in Odessa, Texas when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on her 21st birthday. Soon afterward she and her younger brother volunteered for service in the Army Air Corps.



Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has reiterated that he won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and he’s claiming support for that position from an unlikely quarter: former U.S. president Harry Truman. But a closer look reveals that Truman’s words are being misrepresented.

In a Feb. 3 interview with the New York Times, Abbas was asked about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state—something both the Israeli government and President Barack Obama have said the Palestinian Authority needs to do. “This is out of the question,” Abbas said. To justify that position, Abbas handed the Times interviewer a packet of documents, the first of which was a statement by Truman from 1948 in which the words “Jewish state” were crossed out and replaced by “State of Israel.”

Someone who didn’t know better might think Abbas had scored a point. But in fact, the document in question does not provide evidence of American opposition to a Jewish state.

Here’s how that cross-out came about:


http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-bawer/heading-toward-the-eu-exit/print/ On the European Union front, things are getting more and more promising. For years now, a majority of Brits have favored their country’s withdrawal from the EU, compelling Prime Minister David Cameron to promise a renegotation of the terms of UK membership and a referendum on the question of withdrawal after next year’s general […]



We live in a strange world in which the weather is a subject of furious political debate. People have been arguing about the weather ever since the first rainstorm caught the first man without the umbrella that he did not yet know how to make, but they didn’t hold political debates over it.

For the last fifty years, the anti-weather side has been insisting that the world is headed toward a Frostean apocalypse of ice or fire. The calm biblical assertion that “Seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” was replaced by the terrifying certainty that the planet would soon turn into Mars or Venus; either too hot or too cold.

The end of weather was here. Instead of stable rhythms and cycles that might last for months or centuries, there was a runaway weather apocalypse that would culminate in unlivable conditions.

The doomsday predictions roll out daily without any regard to scientific or experiential reality. The more the predictions fail to match up, the more urgently Warmists insist on action. The harder it snows, the more articles appear warning that snow may soon be a thing of the past.

Never mind the weather; the end of weather is almost here.

Comparing Israel’s and Jordan’s Treatment of the Palestinians — on The Glazov Gang


This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Mudar Zahran, a leader of Palestinians in Jordan who has been living in exile in the UK since 2010. He compares Israel’s and Jordan’s treatment of the Palestinians and expresses some taboo truths.

He also calls out John Kerry on his “peace plan” for the Mideast and asks why a U.S. Secretary of State is threatening Israel to commit suicide:

The Pentagon’s Bow to Islamic Extremism Posted By Raymond Ibrahim


“Caving to pressure from Muslim groups, the Pentagon has relaxed uniform rules to allow Islamic beards, turbans and hijabs. It’s a major win for political correctness and a big loss for military unit cohesion,” said a recent report. This new relaxation of rules for Muslims comes at a time when the FBI is tracking more than 100 suspected jihadi-infiltrators of the U.S. military. Just last month, Craig Benedict Baxam, a former Army soldier and convert to Islam, was sentenced to seven years in prison due to his al-Qaeda/jihadi activities. Also last month, Mozaffar Khazaee, an Iranian-American working for the Defense Department, was arrested for sending secret documents to America’s enemy, Iran. According to a Pentagon spokesperson, the new religious accommodations—to allow Islamic beards, turbans, and hijabs—which took effect very recently, would “reduce both the instances and perception of discrimination among those whose religious expressions are less familiar to the command.” The report concludes that, “Making special accommodations for Islam will only attract more Muslims into the military at a time when two recent terror cases highlight the ongoing danger of Muslims in uniform.” But it’s worse than that; for not only will it attract “more Muslims,” it will attract precisely the wrong kinds of Muslims, AKA, “Islamists,” “radicals,” etc. This is easily demonstrated by connecting the dots and understanding that Muslims who adhere to visible, non-problematic aspects of Islam—growing beards and donning hijabs—often indicate their adherence to non-visible, problematic aspects of Islam. Consider it this way: Why do some Muslim men wear the prescribed beard and why do some Muslim women wear the prescribed hijab? Most Muslims would say they do so because Islam’s prophet Muhammad commanded them to (whether via the Koran or Hadith).